IRENAEUS OF LYONS

E R I C O S B O R NHonorary Professor, La Trobe University, Melbourne

andProfessorial Fellow, University of Melbourne

PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGEThe Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESSThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB RU, UK

West th Street, New York, NY - , USA Stamford Road, Oakleigh, VIC , Australia

Ruiz de Alarcon , Madrid, SpainDock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town , South Africa

http://www.cambridge.org

C© Eric Osborn

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place withoutthe written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

Typeface Baskerville Monotype /. pt. System LATEX ε [TB]

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data

Osborn, Eric Francis.Irenaeus of Lyons / Eric Osborn.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN (hardback) . Christian saints – France – Lyon – Biography.

. Irenaeus, Saint, Bishop of Lyon. I. Title.BR.I O . ′ – dc

[B] CIP

ISBN hardback

Contents

Preface page xiList of abbreviations xvi

Irenaeus: argument and imagery . Life and work . Irenaeus philosophus? . The unexpected jungle . Source criticism and conceptual bankruptcy . Content, contour and conflict . Truth and beauty: the two criteria . The four concepts . Argument and images

P A R T I D I V I N E I N T E L L E C T

One God: Intellect and love . Attributes of God: from opulence to omnipresence . Metaphysic of mind . Divine Intellect in Irenaeus . Plotinus . Knowledge, love and unity of the divine Intellect

P A R T I I E C O N O M Y

One creator: ut sapiens architectus et maximus rex . Two analogies – wise architect and sovereign king .. Sovereign king .. Enclosing, not enclosed .. One creator, no regress .. Wise architect – word and plan

vii

viii List of contents

.. Wise architect – the configuration of created things . Plotinus’ argument for a good creator . God needs nothing .. Creatio ex nihilo: concept without formula ( Justin) .. Creatio ex nihilo: formula without concept (Basilides) .. Creatio ex nihilo: formula and concept (Irenaeus) . Immediacy

Economy: God as architect of time . Economy and divine architect .. Economy as accustoming .. Economy as progressive revelation .. Economy as the ascent of man .. Economy as polemic: history as knowledge . Trinity and the hands of God . River and movement

P A R T I I I R E C A P I T U L A T I O N

Recapitulation: correction and perfection . Recapitulation, a complex concept . Correction .. Perfection of being .. Joy in truth; perfection of truth .. Perfection of goodness .. Christology: two Adams .. Word of God .. One mediator .. Father and son .. The name . The totality of recapitulation

Recapitulation: inauguration and consummation . . Inauguration of new life . . Life through the cross .. Christ as head and cornerstone .. The unity of the church . The economy of apostolic truth . New way of life . Baptism, eucharist and ministry .. Consummation: one God alone will reign .. When Christ shall come again .. Resurrection

List of contents ix

.. Communion and separation .. Antichrist and chiliasm

P A R T I V P A R T I C I P A T I O N

Logic and the rule of truth: participationin truth . Canon and criterion . Compendium of truth . Charisma and truth . What does the rule say? . Conversion, recovery of reason, faith and sight .. Heresy .. Contemporary assessment .. Sophistry . Parody: theology for horses . Consonantia

Scripture as mind and will of God: participationin truth . . From prophetic spirit to eternal word . . Mind and will of God . . Prophecy: from prediction to presence . . A rebirth of images .. The unity and truth of scripture .. Scripture and tradition .. Principles of interpretation . Images of the economy: the four Gospels .. Formation of the Christian bible .. Canon of scripture .. Typology and truth .. Typology and economy . John . Paul

Aesthetics: participation in beauty . Persistence of aesthetics . A theological aesthetic? . Art and aesthetics in early Christianity . Manifestation, vision and participation .. Glory .. Criticism and difficulties . The limits of beauty

x List of contents

Human growth from creation to resurrection:participation in life . . Image and likeness: the puzzle . . Image and likeness: inseparable conjunction . . Image and likeness: disjunction . . Solutions to the problem: Fantino and Sesboue .. Sin and fall, original sin .. Perfection of Adam .. Unity of man as body, soul and spirit .. Breath of life .. Spirit transforms flesh into incorruption .. Strength made perfect in weakness .. Flesh and glory . Growth through participation

Goodness and truth: ethics of participation . . Free will and freedom . . Horizons of freedom .. Love of truth .. Love and natural law .. Lusts of the flesh . Martyrdom . Ethics and participation . Love of enemies as crux of recapitulation

P A R T V C O N C L U S I O N

The glory of God and man . Humanism: saving the self . Two criteria: argument and imagery .. Optimism and growth through participation .. Participation and exchange . The immediacy of God

Appendix: Gnosticism

Select bibliography Citations from Irenaeus Citations from the bible Index of classical authors Index of patristic authors General index

CHAPTER

Irenaeus: argument and imagery

. L I F E A N D W O R K

The original Greek text of Irenaeus’ Against heresies is found onlyin fragmentary form, while a complete Latin translation preparedabout the year has survived. There are three early manuscriptsof the Latin translation, the oldest of which (Claromontanus)dates from the tenth or eleventh century. The others are later(Leydensis, Arundelianus). Erasmus’ editio princeps of Irenaeus ()contains some readings not represented by any of these threemanuscripts and the sources from which his variants may derivehave since disappeared. Useful editions of Against heresies have subse-quently been prepared by Massuet, Stieren and Harvey. The recentedition by Rousseau, Doutreleau and others (Sources Chretiennes)supersedes earlier editions.

Eusebius mentions another work by Irenaeus, The demonstration of

the apostolic preaching, known since in a sixth-century Armenianversion. Lost works include the Letter to Florinus (also known asConcerning the sole rule of God, or that God is not the author of evil ), On

the Ogdoad, an attack on the Valentinian Ogdoad, which presentsprimitive apostolic tradition, On schism, addressed to Blastus and On

knowledge, a refutation of paganism. Irenaeus intended (but did notproduce) a work against Marcion (..). His writings all datefrom the last two decades of the second century.

Most early theologians were travellers, but their movements andteachers are not always certain. Justin tells us his Palestinian place ofbirth and philosophical pedigree, and sets his dialogue in Ephesus;

his apology and the report of his martyrdom establish that he taught According to Eusebius, H.E. ...

Irenaeus of Lyons

and died at Rome. Tertullian illuminates his own native setting inCarthage, but says nothing of time spent elsewhere. Clement ofAlexandria tells us where he went to learn (stromateis . . ) butdoes not name his teachers.

We know a little more of Irenaeus’ personal life and history.There are limits: despite attempts to prove his non-Hellenic ori-gin, his birthplace remains uncertain. There is wide disagree-ment on the date of his birth, with estimates from those ofDodwell (AD ), Grabe (), Tillemont and Lightfoot (), Ropes(), Harvey (), to those of Dupin, Massuet and Kling (),Bohringer, Ziegler and others ( ). The most probable date liesbetween and . The early estimates ignore the late de-velopment of his writing. The late estimates probably make himtoo young for episcopacy in , when he succeeded the ninety-year-old Pothinus. Irenaeus’ claim (..) that the Apocalypse waswritten towards the end of the reign of Domitian († ) and near tothe time of his own generation makes a year of birth much after improbable, since a generation was commonly reckoned as thirtyor forty years.

There is an uncertain tradition that Irenaeus died as a martyrin or during the persecution of Septimius Severus. Thisclaim is first found () in Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah (ch. ),but not in his earlier () De viris illustribus, suggesting that thestory may be an interpolation from Gallic traditions concerningthe havoc of the persecution in Lyons.

The church at Lyons had begun about the middle of the secondcentury, since those arrested in included its founders. Thecommunity was originally Greek and Greek-speaking but includedRomans whose Latin names occur among those of the martyrs.Irenaeus indicates a Celtic element in the church and it is clearthat, although small, the community represented all social ranks.The churches of Lyons and nearby Vienne were closely related,while connections with Rome and Asia Minor were strong; but thechurch did not reflect the dominance of the city in the whole of

A. Benoit, Saint-Irenee, introduction a l’etude de sa theologie (Paris, ), . See J. van der Straeten, ‘Saint-Irenee fut-il martyre?’, in Les martyrs de Lyon ( ), CNRS

(Paris, ), –. The whole of this book is useful for the understanding of thehistorical background to Irenaeus.

Irenaeus: argument and imagery

Gaul. Lyons was the centre, indeed the ‘recapitulation’ where allGaul came together: ‘All the threads of Roman public service inthis great region converged at Lugdunum and were gathered up atthat centre.’

Irenaeus was still young when, at the royal court in Smyrna, heheard and saw Polycarp († /). The reference to the ‘royalcourt’ does not establish that the emperor was there at the time,nor is the emperor to be identified certainly with Hadrian, whowas resident at Smyrna for the second time between and .The period in question could better refer to , when the fu-ture emperor Antoninus Pius was in Smyrna as Proconsul of Asia.Irenaeus’ report of Polycarp’s words on the decline of the times im-ply that Polycarp was an older man when Irenaeus heard him, andthat he himself was young. A Moscow manuscript of the Martyrdom

of Polycarp states that Irenaeus was teaching in Rome at the time ofPolycarp’s death.

Irenaeus names Polycarp as the dominant influence of his youth.As a bishop, Irenaeus was closer to the collegiate pattern of Poly-carp than to the monarchical pattern of Ignatius. We know fromIrenaeus (..) that Polycarp visited Rome two years before hismartyrdom to confer with Anicetus on controversy concerning thedate of Easter (H.E. ..– ).

Irenaeus elegantly claims to have no rhetoric or excellence ofstyle, but shows some rhetorical skill and a knowledge of the worksof Plato, Homer, Hesiod and Pindar. Although he does not con-front the philosophical tradition as do Clement and Origen, hisaccount of God reveals his awareness of the Middle Platonic andStoic philosophies of the day. He may have gone to Rome to studyrhetoric and then gone on to Lyons. However, Smyrna was a centreof the Second Sophistic movement and his skills could have beenlearnt at home. His attack on Sophists may be seen as turning

Benoit, Introduction, –. James S. Reid, The municipalities of the Roman empire (Cambridge, ), . Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus, in Eusebius, H.E. .. J. de Roulet, ‘Saint Irenee eveque’, RHPhR , (), –. This does not mean, as Harvey argues, that he was of Syrian origin. See W. Harvey,

Against heresies, text (Cambridge, ), vol. I, cliv. P. Nautin, Lettres et ecrivains chretiens des IIe et IIIe siecles (Paris, ), . See whole section

–.

Irenaeus of Lyons

sophistic weapons against their owners, although Benoit consid-ered that he ‘has not totally assimilated rhetoric’. His dominat-ing love of truth came through Justin, from Socrates, Plato andPaul.

Irenaeus travelled (by way of Rome) to the great city of Lyons,situated at the confluence of the Rhone and the Saone in the centreof Celtic Gaul, which at that time stretched from the Seine to theGaronne. During the persecution of the church at Lyons in ,he carried a letter from the confessors in Lyons to Eleutherus,bishop of Rome. It is possible that Irenaeus was already bishopof Vienne and that he took over the care of both churches whenPothinus died. This would explain why Irenaeus was not himselfin prison at the time. Irenaeus’ journey, ‘for the peace of thechurches’, was on behalf of the confessors at Lyons (H.E. ..).In the same year Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, died in prison, andIrenaeus succeeded to his office. Irenaeus’ participation in currentcontroversies extended into Victor’s tenure as bishop of Rome. HisAgainst heresies was written at Lyons.

We have in a letter an extended account of the persecution atLyons. The servants of Christ in Vienne and Lyons send to Asianand Phrygian brethren a greeting for ‘peace, grace and glory’ basedon a common faith and hope in redemption (H.E. . .). Theviolent sufferings of the martyrs are contrasted with their mod-eration and humanity (H.E. .. ). The churches of Vienne andLyons enjoy peace and concord because of the virtues of themartyrs. Vettius Epagathas, for instance, ‘possesses fullness oflove to God and neighbour’, is fervent in the spirit and is thecomforter of Christians because he has within him the com-forter, the spirit. The fullness of his love is seen in his defenceof his brothers, for whom he gives his life (H.E. . .–).The criterion of a true prophet is not asceticism but love of

See Benoit, Introduction (–), who cites A. Boulanger, Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dansles provinces d’Asie-Mineure au IIe siecle de notre ere (Paris, ), –. See also F. Sagnard,La gnose valentinienne et le temoignage de saint Irenee (Paris, ), – and R. M. Grant,‘Irenaeus and hellenistic culture’, HThR (), – .

L. Cracco Ruggini, ‘Les structures de la societe et de l’economie lyonnaises par rapporta la politique locale et imperiale’, in Les martyrs ( ), – .

Nautin, Lettres et ecrivains, . The shorter title given to ‘Unmasking and overthrow of so-called knowledge’.

Irenaeus: argument and imagery

God and neighbour. The story of Blandina gives the samepre-eminence to love (H.E. . .–). Pothinus was fortified bythe power of the spirit with a burning desire to be a martyr(H.E. . .). The martyrs had the holy spirit as their counsel-lor (H.E. ..), and Irenaeus came with their commendation(H.E. .).

In the brief letter to Eleutherus, the martyrs commend Irenaeusas brother, companion and ‘zealous for the covenant of Christ’ (H.E.

..), a description reminiscent of Elijah, who was very zealous forthe Lord God ( Kings :), and of Mattathias, who was zealousfor the law ( Macc. : ). Eusebius’ claim that Irenaeus was apeacemaker in name and nature (H.E. ..) is not simply a playon words but a fact borne out by Irenaeus’ life and work (H.E.

.–).His irenic approach shows that his objection to heresies on

matters of faith had little to do with a struggle for power. Peacewas strengthened by disagreement on points which were not mat-ters of faith (H.E. .). Even on matters of faith, elsewhere heprays for his adversaries whom he loves more than they love them-selves (.. ). Eusebius considers the Easter controversy to be veryserious. The Roman church’s authoritarian intervention in the con-troversy shocked the churches. Irenaeus stood in the middle of thisdebate; his theology of redemption, while close to the view of theQuartodecimans as expounded by Melito, was quite compatiblewith the Roman view of Easter. Irenaeus argued to Victor thatboth parties in the controversy should be free to celebrate Easter inthe tradition of their own church, pointing out that no Romanpredecessor had thought it necessary to excommunicate thechurches of Asia Minor for their adherence to a primitive practice(H.E. .).

Irenaeus explains the difference between the Quartodecimanpractice of the Asian churches and other churches, who refused toend their fast on any other day than Sunday, the day of resurrection.

‘Une telle presentation insistant sur l’amour et le Saint Esprit se pose discretement enantithese de Montan et de ses prophetesses’, E. Lanne, ‘Saint Irenee de Lyon, artisan dela paix entre les eglises’, Iren (), .

Lanne, ‘Saint Irenee de Lyon’, –. Ibid., .

Irenaeus of Lyons

If the Quartodeciman practice could not claim ancient and apos-tolic tradition, Polycrates of Ephesus found a basis for this positionin Philip and John, who kept the fourteenth day according to thegospel and the rule of faith (H.E. ..). He agrees that the mys-tery of resurrection should be celebrated only on the Lord’s day, buturges Victor not to reject those churches which hold to an ancientcustom. He goes on to talk of different traditions of fasting whichhad their origin in the past. Our predecessors (he argues), withoutprecision, preserved and transmitted their custom in simplicity;despite their differences, they kept the peace. In striking words,he claims that ‘disagreement on fasting validates the agreementon faith’; differences of practice had been tolerated because theydid not compromise the essential unity of the faith. In the secondpassage which Eusebius cites, Irenaeus offers examples fromhistory – Roman bishops before Soter had accepted the Quarto-deciman practice. They did not observe this practice themselves,but maintained peace with those who did. Irenaeus gives the ex-ample of Polycarp and Anicetus. When Polycarp visited Rome, thebishop deferred to him in sacramental communion. Accordingly,peace should prevail rather than uniformity of practice. Matters offaith are different, because, as he points out ( .. , ), there wasone faith throughout the world.

In Irenaeus’ explanation (.) of Paul’s words that a truly spir-itual disciple judges all and is himself judged by no one ( Cor.:), a reference to the Montanist controversy has been discerned:he who has received the spirit of God stands in succession to theprophets whose history of salvation he interprets. The truly spiri-tual disciple confronts the ‘pneumatics’, the heretics who reject thetruth of the church. He also judges false prophets, those who causeschism, who lack the love of God, and who divide the great andglorious body of Christ; these strain at a gnat and swallow a camel(.. ). Irenaeus goes on to speak about the supreme gift of lovethat joins the martyr to the true prophet and to the truly spiritualdisciple.

The name of Irenaeus as a peacemaker spread far and wide. Afragment of Against heresies, found at Oxyrhynchus, is contemporary

και ’η διαφωνια τη_

ς νηστειας τ ην ’oµoνoιαν τη_

ς πιστεως σvνισ τησ ι.

Irenaeus: argument and imagery

with Irenaeus himself. This shows the speed with which his ideasconcerning concord between different traditions influenced thewhole church.

How close was the link between the churches of Asia and Lyons?Opinions differ. Bowersock denies all relation between the churchesof Lyons and Asia. Kraft claims the church at Lyons to be pre-Montanist and closely linked with Asia. Mondesert sums up thecontroversy as ‘not proven’. Frend claims that the church at Lyons,originally touched by Montanism, came to reject it because of itsdivisive tendencies.

. I R E N A E U S P H I L O S O P H U S?

The perennial appeal of Irenaeus springs, says Sagnard, from hissincerity and optimism. In Erasmus wrote with enthusiasmof the freshness and vigour which he found in the work he edited.The writings of Irenaeus seemed fresh with the first force of thegospel and the dedication of one who is ready to die for his faith.Martyrs have a distinctive diction which is earnest, strong and bold.Irenaeus gained these qualities because of his proximity to the daysof the apostles and the flowers of martyrdom. He had listened avidlyto Polycarp, who had known apostles who had seen and heard thelord and who possessed a vivid and comprehensive memory. Fromsuch beginnings the writings of Irenaeus convey the heart of thegospel and the aspiration of martyrdom.

Irenaeus’ strength of mind and strong digestive system ( patientis

stomachi ) enabled him, said Erasmus, to handle the tedious mon-strosities of the heretics. His opponent Valentinus was a mostpompous Platonist who turned his gifts to the confusion of thechurch and the fabrication of intricate fables. Against the carpingof impious philosophers, the philosophy of the gospel is establishedin strength. While Irenaeus is provoked by the censures of theheretics, his chief concern is positive; the response far exceeds thestimulus. He must use the whole armament of the divine scripturesto confirm the truth which has been attacked. The first Christian

See Les martyrs ( ), where each of these views is stated. Sagnard, La gnose valentinienne, –.

Irenaeus of Lyons

conflict had been against the Jews. The second was against philoso-phers and heretics. Philosophy which had caused the trouble, pro-vided the cure. When Valentinus philosophus attacked the church,Justin philosophus and Irenaeus philosophus defended it. Marcionphilosophus was answered by Tertullian philosophus and Celsusphilosophus by Origen philosophus. Erasmus concludes with thehope that God will raise up peacemakers (Irenaei) to lead the churchof his day out of its troubles.

Despite his physical revulsion against the theosophical maunder-ings of Valentinus, Erasmus still calls him a philosopher. Here hefollows the convention of his time and brings out the point that thecontest was intellectual and not a struggle for power. Valentinusmay have lacked all the qualities which Erasmus looked for in ahuman mind, but he had to be elevated to the status of philoso-pher in order to be attacked by argument. Today questions ofgenre (‘Is X a philosopher?’) are rightly considered less impor-tant than the identification of ‘the people with poetic gifts, allthe original minds who had a talent for redescription’. Gnos-tics cited philosophical opinions without argument, and philoso-phy without argument is like opera without music, ballet with-out movement and Shakespeare without words. Irenaeus showsless knowledge of philosophy than he does of literature andrhetoric. Philosophers’ opinions (cited thirty-two times, chieflyin Book ), as distinct from the practice of argument, were oflittle use. They are never an indication of philosophy, whichmay be found rather in Irenaeus’ love of argument, subtlety ofreasoning, and sense of measure and harmony. Nevertheless,because of popular convention and inevitable misunderstan-ding, it is unwise to follow Erasmus in speaking of Irenaeus asa philosopher. Today we might distinguish between a philosopher’s philosopher and an historian’s

philosopher. A philosopher’s philosopher argues about such subjects as God, freedom,immortality, logic, epistemology, aesthetics, ethics and such subjects as have been linkedwith them by philosophical convention. Clement of Alexandria, following Aristotle, in-sisted that philosophy was necessary, because if you argued that it was not you had alreadybegun to philosophize. The historian’s philosopher cites the opinions of philosophers, ar-guing very little if at all.

R. Rorty, Contingency, irony and solidarity (Cambridge, ), . Benoit, Introduction, Ibid., and Sagnard, La gnose valentinienne, – .

Irenaeus: argument and imagery

. T H E U N E X P E C T E D J U N G L E

No one has presented a more unified account of God, the worldand history than has Irenaeus. From the moment of his creation,Adam never left the hands of God. The entire universe, visibleand invisible, has been brought together in Christ. ‘There is oneGod the father . . . and one Christ our lord who comes through thewhole economy to sum up the universe in himself . . . and as headof the church he draws all things to himself at the proper time’(..). ‘There is nothing out of place’ (.. ). This unbrokenunity embraces opposites, as prophets and psalms declare that theman without beauty, humble and humiliated is holy lord, wonder-ful counsellor, beautiful, mighty God and coming judge (..).In contrast to this universal synthesis, the reader of Irenaeus isconfronted by stark problems of incoherence, which provoked theconclusion by two great scholars that the thought of Irenaeus isa jungle (Urwald, foret vierge). No careful reader of Irenaeus canavoid the sense of confusion.

The nineteenth century produced many valuable expositionsof Irenaeus. Duncker found a system in Irenaeus which coheredaround his christology. Irenaeus had turned to John for theo-logy, to Paul for anthropology, and his christology joined thesetwo different tendencies. Later writers denied the systematic na-ture of the doctrine of Irenaeus, although they did not agreeon the kind of system they were rejecting. Ziegler would notset out a coherent system which began from a central pointand showed breaks within the system presented by Duncker.What we have in Irenaeus, according to Ziegler, is not so muchhis own system but rather the common doctrine of the ancientchurch. Irenaeus the bishop wishes to set out the main pointsof the doctrine of the universal church. Harnack adopted afragmentary approach to Irenaeus: there was no synthesis, butmany separate pieces of tradition which needed to be identified.The ruling principles were that the same God was creator andsaviour and that Jesus Christ is saviour as God who has becomeman.

Literally ‘primeval forest’, ‘virgin forest’: Koch and D’Ales respectively. The formerdescribes Irenaeus as a confused compiler ‘doctor constructivus et confusus’.

Irenaeus of Lyons

In the early twentieth century, Bonwetsch produced a lucid andconcise account, then Koch claimed a limited coherence on thesubject of Adam and evolution but could not credit Irenaeus withanything like general coherence. Beuzart did not see any concep-tual scheme in Irenaeus, whose thought he deemed to be governedby polemic and practical needs. Consequently the difficulties andobscurities do not reward investigation. Lawson found nothing sys-tematic in Irenaeus but believed that the many details of his thoughthad a common effect.

The scene remains confused. The distinguished major contri-butor, Orbe, has established a school of interpretation which fol-lows his own voluminous work. Orbe takes the whole of Irenaeusseriously, understands him profoundly and explores him endlessly.Yet Orbe’s success is almost a deterrent, because he refuses to ab-breviate the rich complexity of Irenaeus and the mass of argumentand imagery leaves readers overwhelmed.

In English there have been two recent short works, both writtenas part of a series based on a particular method. Grant set out thehistorical and cultural background of Irenaeus and selected pas-sages which illuminate the background and the content of Irenaeus.While Minns is aware of complexity, a necessary brevity limits hisexposition to Irenaeus’ account of what become the main elementsof Christian doctrine. Fantino and Sesboue offer extended treat-ments and other works may be expected, for there is interest inIrenaeus and appreciation of his worth. Much of the recent energyexpended in Irenaean studies has gone into the preparation of anexcellent text and translation, where the work of Rousseau andDoutreleau displays depth of understanding.

. S O U R C E C R I T I C I S M A N D C O N C E P T U A L B A N K R U P T C Y

Early in the twentieth century, there appeared a remarkable workof source criticism which was to define the mood of scholarshipfor many years. Loofs analysed the writing of Irenaeus into four orfive main sources which were mutually incoherent. According to

This is justified because Irenaeus claims that all thinking must be done in the context ofthe rule of faith.

Loofs built on earlier work of Harnack and Bousset.

Irenaeus: argument and imagery

Loofs, Irenaeus was, if anything, a bad theologian, and perhaps noteven a theologian at all. Loofs concluded, ‘Irenaeus has become amuch slighter figure as a theological writer than was previously sup-posed . . . As a theologian he has become even smaller.’ Irenaeuswas so confused that he allowed the attribute of divinity not only tothe father and the son but also to believers (it did not occur to Loofsthat this was what anyone might find in the Fourth Gospel). Fur-ther, Irenaeus’ favourite theme of recapitulation is a trivial flourishwhich has no real basis in his thought. Theophilus had done abetter job. Only, concludes Loofs, when one distinguishes his ownmeagre theological contribution from the priceless sources whichhe conveyed, is it possible to understand why Irenaeus was so prizedin the ancient church.

While negative response to this analysis came from several sides,such as that of Montgomery Hitchcock, and Loofs’ argument wastaken apart, the composite nature of Irenaeus was sufficiently ac-cepted to make further exposition insecure. In the middle of thecentury, Benoit wrote his introduction to the study of Irenaeus,a lucid work in which he indicated that the theology of Irenaeusmust wait for an expositor. There was too much incoherence, hebelieved, to write anything more than an introduction. From thebeginning he rejected Loofs’ conclusions as incomplete because itseemed that Loofs had made no attempt to understand the totalthought of Irenaeus. He pleaded, ‘Is it not possible today, afterthese analytic studies and the many works of detail on Irenaeus togive a more synthetic account of his thought and his theology?’

Since then, there have been many works on particular themes ofIrenaeus, and the secondary literature has not ceased to grow.

F. Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien adversus Marcionem und die anderen theologischen Quellen beiIrenaeus, TU , (Leipzig, ), .

Ibid., : ‘wenn man davon absieht, was er an Lesefruchten in dies bunte Gefasshineingesteckt hat’. In source analysis, incompatible strands may be assigned to differentsources before a thorough search for conceptual coherence has been made.

Yet Loofs was not content with a fragmentary view of Irenaeus but analysed the sourcesof the different sections and then looked for something which joined them all together.

Benoit, Introduction, : ‘il faut . . . achever le travail de Loofs . . . il faut reconstituer l’imaged’ensemble . . . retrouver la vie interieure et profonde qui a anime cet homme que futIrenee’. He cites Marc Bloch, ‘l’objet de l’histoire est par nature l’homme’ and H-I.Marrou, ‘c’est la complexite du reel, de l’homme qui est l’objet de l’histoire’.

Benoit, Introduction, – .

Irenaeus of Lyons

In contrast to the general trend, Wingren found in Irenaeusthe fusion of all previous Christian tradition into a harmoniouswhole. Without predecessors, Irenaeus unified the many strands ofChristian thought. Dominant in this unification was the conceptof God’s historical dealing with man ( ..). The first two and ahalf books of Against heresies provide a straightforward view of savinghistory in opposition to the Gnostics. Here Irenaeus is concernedwith the one creator God through whose economy ‘the cosmos andhistory are embraced and held, given form and order and healedand redeemed’.

A second criticism (conceptual bankruptcy) was far more seriousthan that of Loofs. Koch, after a successful analysis of Irenaeus’motif of education, nevertheless insisted that one should not lookfor concepts in Irenaeus whose mind works with intuitions andimpressions, or even in verbal play. He was not a man of ideas,according to Koch, and we should not look for rational coherencein his writings. Houssiau, on the other hand, usefully looked forcohesion or harmony within the ideas of Irenaeus, an aestheticrather than a logical consistency. The key criterion for Irenaeusis what is appropriate or fitting, to prepon (τ o πρεπoν). Particularconcepts of Irenaeus have drawn exploration from many scholars.The most recent example is the work by John Behr on Irenaeus’anthropology. Within the limits of these specific studies Irenaeushas been shown, time and again, to be a creative and consistentthinker. Finally, Fantino produced what Benoit happily welcomedas the ‘theology of Irenaeus’ for which he had waited and, mostrecently, Sesboue has shown the coherence of Irenaeus’ thoughtaround the central issue of recapitulation.

. C O N T E N T, C O N T O U R A N D C O N F L I C T

Five centrifugal factors – diversity of adversary, tradition, scripture,imagery and aphorism – diffuse the thought of Irenaeus. Firstly, the

G. Wingren, Man and the incarnation. A study in the biblical theology of Irenaeus (Edinburgh,).

M. Widmann, ‘Irenaus und seine theologischen Vater’, ZThK ( ), . But see the limitations of his work as indicated by Benoit and Danielou at Benoit, Intro-

duction, – .

Irenaeus: argument and imagery

diverse opinions and the particularity of Gnostic schools oblige himto wander into different paths. Secondly, Irenaeus does not want tosay anything new. The tradition of the gospel is clear; yet traditionis never homogeneous, but always marked by particular insights.Thirdly, scripture is the supreme source of apostolic and prophetictradition. The variety of biblical witness seems invincible. Fourthly,a mixture of images and ideas is never tidy. The exuberant imagesare not a cadenza, a flourish within the main work, but the originof ideas. Fifthly, Irenaeus is concerned to purify the language ofthe church and has the gift of striking utterance. His aphorisms arefamous (‘The glory of God is a living man and the life of man is thevision of God’, .. ) but their meaning is never obvious. Just asTertullian’s striking aphorisms concerning Athens and Jerusalem,or concerning the paradox of God and man, led his interpreterstime and again to misunderstand, so Irenaeus’ brilliant sayings mayfurther disrupt the coherence of his work.

When confronted by such confusion, it is wise to ask three ques-tions concerning content, contour and conflict.

The first question concerns content. What does Irenaeus say?The overall plan of his Against heresies is straightforward. In thefirst book, he sets out systems of gnosis with many variants. Hegives a genealogy of the Gnostic schools and makes the claim thatto overcome gnosis one needs simply to reveal and unmask. InBook , he sets out a refutation of the doctrines he has listed inBook . He refutes the heretical account of pleroma and aeons,the arithmetical and exegetical exercises, and the account of thefinal consummation. Then comes a refutation of the doctrinesof those who are not Valentinian. He speaks of the magic ofCarpocrates and Simon, of moral licentiousness, of transmigrationof souls. The different heavens of Basilides and the plurality of godsare all attacked. In Book , he begins from the authority and truthof scriptures, and then goes on to argue for the unicity of God andthe unicity of Christ. This he does on the basis of scriptures.Book has two main parts – in the first, Irenaeus refutes Gnos-ticism on the grounds of the clear and unambiguous statementsof Jesus, and in the second he refutes their account on the ba-sis of the parables of Jesus. There are two smaller sections, onewhich deals with the prophecies and the prophets, and the other

Irenaeus of Lyons

which deals with human free will. Book is even simpler in itsoutline. It deals first with the words of Paul on the resurrection ofthe flesh, moves on to an extended account of the recapitulation inChrist and concludes with an exegesis of the temptation and twotreatises, one on the Antichrist and the other on the millennium.The content, therefore, of the books, can be set out and seen at aglance.

Further, unity of content may be noted in the way in which therule of faith brings clarity. God the father is perfect, omnipresent,sovereign mind, and the source of all good. God creates all thingsout of nothing, and man is his creature. God’s plan is fulfilledthrough his constant activity from the beginning. The hands ofGod, the son and spirit never leave man but accustom him toGod as they accustom God to man. Another theme which holdsIrenaeus’ thought together is the doctrine of recapitulation. By hislife, death and resurrection, Christ corrected what had gone wrongin Adam and perfected what was begun in Adam. He inaugurateda new humanity which would find its consummation in the future.Because gnosis began with epistemology Irenaeus has a constantconcern for truth and argument. The bible stands in the centreand Irenaeus is the first witness to a Christian bible containingworks from old and new testaments. His understanding of scrip-ture is not literal and biblicist, but theological and analytic. Hisideas are formed through an understanding of the theology of Pauland John rather than from an accumulation of texts. He takesfrom John the theme of glory and presents an aesthetic theology.Anthropology is a central concern, because Gnostics present a dis-tinctive account of captive man. Man is made in the image andlikeness of God and consists of body and soul with a gift of thedivine spirit by which eternal life is possible. The ethical questionswhich are important in his conflict with the Gnostics concern freewill, the martyr’s love of truth and the love of enemies, for it is onthe cross where Jesus forgives his enemies that God is most perfectlyseen.

The second question concerns contour. There is a remarkableunity of content in Irenaeus through the rule of faith and the

Like Clement of Alexandria, he interprets kata noun as distinct from kata lexin.

Irenaeus: argument and imagery

sequence of his own ideas. This is reassuring, but does not indi-cate a comprehensive account. All these themes may be foundelsewhere in early Christian literature and they do not indicatethe originality which we can sense in Irenaeus. Therefore we askwhether there is a shape to be found in his thought. Complex au-thors have an intellectual physiognomy which offers a way forward.Irenaeus invites diagrams, and many useful diagrams of his doctrineof recapitulation have been produced. How did he think, how didhe prove, how did he understand the ways of God? A good image isthat of the hourglass lying on its side so that it presents a movementfrom left to right. It begins with creation and ends with the consum-mation of all things. The first half of the hourglass bears on its sidesthe message of the prophets. The visions of the prophets representthe mind of God, and take the place for Irenaeus of the world ofPlatonic forms. Like the forms, they reach a first principle in Christas the Christian equivalent of the form of the good. The narrowneck of the hourglass is the recapitulation of all things in Christ,and the second half of the hourglass bears on its side the messageof the prophets and the words of Christ and the apostles. Withinthe hourglass the believer lives, looking to the prophets throughChrist and looking to the Gospels and the writings of the apostles.These represent the mind of God and find their climax in a formof perfect goodness which is Christ who sums up all things.

Irenaeus presents a continuous history which has a distinctiveshape, where sources of knowledge are given through prophets andapostles to provide knowledge of truth. Irenaeus displays a formof horizontal Platonism. Christ the rising sun sheds his light overthe world and brings light to those who receive it. The prophets,saints and apostles, and above all the words of Jesus, take the placeof the Platonic forms. So we may understand Irenaeus and hisexegesis, which bounces off the sides of the hourglass in ways which

See, for example, B. Sesboue, Tout recapituler dans le Christ, christologie et soteriologie d’lrenee deLyon (Paris, ), .

In attributing a Platonic paradigm I am describing the general structure which theculture has imposed on his thought and not a conscious allegiance. We are all membersof a linguistic community, which shapes our language. ‘For it is not words which refer butspeakers using words’ who refer to the reality we confront; J. M. Soskice, Metaphor andreligious language (Oxford, ), , with acknowledgement to Hilary Putnam, ‘Realismand reason’, in Meaning and the moral sciences (London, ), .

Irenaeus of Lyons

are provocative. His cadenzas are important because they indicatedivine truth in the words of prophets, Christ and the apostles. Theprolixity of Irenaeus is not a problem when we see it as an attemptto convey the richness of the mind of God as found in scripture.

Irenaeus was not conscious of this Platonic pattern in his thought;he did not acknowledge the authority of any philosopher and hisaccounts of body, physical world, incarnation and history wereopposite to those of Plato. This Platonic pattern was simply theway in which most minds of his time functioned and, in order tocommunicate and to think alongside them, he reflected a Platonicstructure. We may call this a Platonic paradigm, and it may increasehostility towards Christians from professed Platonists (like Celsus),who acknowledge a loyalty to Plato. It is remarkable when welook at Celsus alongside Origen, or Marcus Aurelius alongsideTertullian, to find how similar is the logic of thought in opposingsides. Without this similar structure, there was no way in whichattack or communication could take place. Irenaeus had takenmany of his Platonic insights from Justin, who equally rejected anyphilosophical school, and insisted that truth was above and beyondparticular allegiance.

The third method for tracking down an elusive thinker is tolook at the points where his interpreters have disagreed vigorously.These points of conflict will show that he has given grounds foropposing views, and that his own view must be one which allowsfor interpretation in opposite directions.

Consider first the various interpretations of Irenaeus’ use of im-age and likeness. Here it has been argued that Irenaeus makes nodistinction between image and likeness, or that for him the imageis distinct from likeness and permanent in face of the variable like-ness. Many ways of identification have been followed because of thelater Christian use of this phrase. There is an answer to the puzzleto be found in the Platonic relation of participation, assimilation orcommunion. A particular participates in a form and draws fromthe form its being and identity. It can never become the form, butcan only become like the form. Plato talks, in his simplest account,about the bed, which the carpenter makes, as being a copy, imageor likeness of the form of the ideal bed in heaven. In Irenaeus theimage of God given in creation is the beginning of the process of

Irenaeus: argument and imagery

growing like God. Because it is part of creation it will remain inall humans; all will have the possibility of participation and assim-ilation to God. What Adam lost was the likeness to God, whichsprang from his participation. The affinity which lay behind thisassimilation remained. Participation means that which participatesboth is and is not the object or form in which it participates. So itis possible for man to participate in God and still fall far short ofGod. Likeness to God can grow in humans, but never cease to belikeness rather than identity.

Or again, consider the arguments that have raged aboutIrenaeus’ thought on the nature of man. Is man body, soul andspirit, or is he body and soul to be enlivened by the spirit of God?Here again Irenaeus follows the tradition of Justin, that the soul isnot life, but participates in life. Therefore, apart from the spirit ofGod, the soul cannot live. Man as a living being must be body, souland spirit. But the spirit is not a part of man in the way in which hisbody and soul are parts. The spirit comes from God. How then,his interpreters have puzzled, is the spirit of man to be consid-ered? Is it divine spirit or is it merely a part of a human being? ForIrenaeus the relationship between man and the divine spirit is oneof participation. Body and soul participate in the divine spirit. Theirparticipation is not complete identity and therefore must be con-sidered as a copy, a pledge, or a share. It is and it is not divine spirit;it is a participation.

These two examples show that Irenaeus used a Platonic move toexplain the relation of man to God. Man’s perception of God, bywhich he gained life, was his participation in God. No one woulddeny that the Platonic concept of participation is full of difficulties;however, Plato was aware of those difficulties and even after he hadstated them in the Parmenides still used the notion of participation togovern the relation between particulars and forms. Irenaeus usesthis relationship to express man’s real but incomplete participationin the life of God.

It will become increasingly clear that Irenaeus draws from hisPlatonic paradigm not merely an outline which presents his ethics,metaphysics and logic as a dialectic which culminates in Christ asfirst principle, but also the notion of participation, which governsthe second half of this book.

Irenaeus of Lyons

. T R U T H A N D B E A U T Y: T H E T W O C R I T E R I A

Irenaeus is an enthusiast, and an enthusiast betrays his motives bythe way in which he writes. The dominant values of Irenaeus maybe grasped when we stand back from the text. First, Irenaeus followsJustin as a lover of truth. He is concerned to argue and to exposeerror, just as Socrates was first interested in the love of truth, whichhe set above life itself. Justin had taken this theme in his apologyto the emperor, just as Socrates had done in his apology. Thepassion for truth, which marked the Platonic tradition, governsIrenaeus in his approach to heresy, following the aphorism ‘amicusPlato, magis amica veritas’. This is what moves Irenaeus from thebeginning to the end of his work. He is concerned to argue, expose,illuminate and expound. Furthermore, he gives us his criterion fortruth and sets out a rule, which contains the test of any proposition.Just as philosophers followed a rule, so Irenaeus has a rule whichhe is prepared to state.

The freshness of Irenaeus is due first to his passion for truth and,secondly, to his sense of beauty and proportion, which is neededbecause his source of truth is prophetic vision, not Platonic argu-ment. He has a theological aesthetic which culminates in the visionof divine glory. The prophets speak as moved by the spirit and indescription of their prophetic vision. This gives them immediate ac-cess to the mind of God. Therefore the interpreter of the bible musttake the patterns of saving history and link them in a way that isfitting. The recurring argument in Irenaeus’ exegesis has been char-acterised as decet – fieri potest – ergo est (it is fitting – it is possible – there-fore it is). Like the philosopher of Plato, the interpreter who seesthe divine dialectic, divides and joins the visions which come to him.

The standard of to prepon, what is fitting or appropriate, governsthe coherence of biblical imagery. It has a long history in classicaland Hellenistic thought. The verb appears in Homer with the See my Justin Martyr (Tubingen, ), –. J. Hoh, Die Lehre des hl. Irenaus uber das Neue Testament (Munster, ), . Here Hoh says

that this method could not refute Gnostic interpretation, because it was arbitrary andoverdone. ‘Das Prinzip von der Tiefe der Schrift wird zu Tode geritten mit der (latentwirkenden) Schlussformel: decet – fieri potest – ergo est.’

The following synopsis of a controversial and wide-ranging theme is indebted to MaxPohlenz, ‘τ oπρεπoν, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des griechischen Geistes’, NAWG.PH (), –.

Irenaeus: argument and imagery

elementary meaning of ‘what appears or seems’, but moves quicklyto become a concept of value so that ‘what seems’ is ‘what is seemly’.In Aeschylus, for example, certain behaviour is appropriate to grief,and victory is appropriate to mortals. The verb now occurs in thethird person only, frequently impersonal, while the participle prepon

continues to be used.So it is common to speak of types of behaviour which are ap-

propriate for the old, for the young, for man, for woman, for slaveand for free. Plato especially develops this idea. Ion speaks of theessence of his art as enabling each to speak in an appropriate man-ner, whether man or woman, slave or free, ruler or ruled, and inthe Gorgias Plato speaks of painters, architects and others as havingthe one concern to join different things together and to harmonisethem in a way which is appropriate (Gorg. e–a). In oratory,mere technical skill is not enough. The true orator also needs tocombine a sense of time with what is fitting and what is new. Al-ready by the year BC aesthetic theory requires that poetry andprose follow proportion in arrangement of parts and in the adjust-ment to persons concerned and the object under discussion. ForPlato to prepon must also be applied to music (Republic a), andAristides Quintilianus later defines music as combining voices andmovement in what is fitting (On music . ).

The Greek mind demands form, proportion and appropriate-ness between reality and appearance, between presentation andcontent, between parts and whole. The important thing for theartist is not whether his working material is precious, but whetherit is appropriate (Hippias Major f ); beauty is defined in termsof to prepon (Hippias Major e). This is joined to what pleasesear and eye. An intellectual investigation for Plato is also gov-erned by what is fitting. There is no mathematical or chrono-logical limit to an inquiry, but only what is appropriate (Statesman

e).Aristotle uses the notion of what is fitting in his Ethics, and espe-

cially in his Rhetoric (.b–b; ab). Good prose must steera fitting course between poetry and common speech. In both proseand poetry, each topic is dealt with in an appropriate way. Rhetoric

Ibid., .

Irenaeus of Lyons

must reflect the moral character and the feelings of the speakersand be appropriate to the object which is described. Theophrastusand Dionysius of Halicarnassus (De compositione verborum –, )wrote similarly. Cicero also (Orator ad M. Brutum ) speaks of deco-

rum, by which subject matter, speaker and hearer are joined inan appropriate way. The one kind of oratory cannot be used todifferent persons at different times on different subjects.

Horace begins his Ars poetica with the demand that each elementshould have its appropriate place. A thing may be beautiful only inits place. Quintilian insists that in rhetoric every excellence requiresits appropriate place. Only in relation to the whole can an individ-ual excellence be exhibited (Institutio oratoria . .). Similarly inarchitecture, Vitruvius begins (De architectura .) with order, dispo-sition, rhythm, symmetry, decor and economy as the six excellencesof design.

Fitness/appropriateness became a central value of classical cul-ture. Beginning from what is appropriate to certain human groups,it moves to what is appropriate to personal identity, art and ethics.The end of this development does not emerge until the Hellenis-tic time. Only here does aesthetic perception gain a stature besidereason and intellect.

. T H E F O U R C O N C E P T S

At the end of a penetrating essay, Hugo Koch acknowledged acoherence in Irenaeus’ soteriology, which had been regarded ascontradictory. Koch insisted, however, that this did not cancel allthe contradictions of Irenaeus’ intellectual jungle, for Irenaeus isnot a man of concepts but of words and images. He brings hisinterpreters to despair, for no sooner have they clarified his ideason a particular point, than he leads them out of sunlight into fog. ‘Hehas precisely no concepts, but images, visions, impressions, moodsand often nothing but words. Life, death, resurrection, immortality,incorruptibility, image and likeness, spirit – these words do notexpress consistently the same ideas, but are used sometimes in a

Hugo Koch, ‘Zur Lehre vom Urstand und von der Erlosung bei Irenaeus’, ThStK –(), –.